So What? This is a question that often comes with learning? It connotes a sort of, what does this "stuff" mean in today's world. Investigating the Reformation as an historical topic is much more than an exercise in trying to understand what each church stands for in Camp Hill. Rather, the "meanings" and "interpretations" over reformation studies can help us understand our own circumstances. Be reminded that history is not science as Karl Marx argued (anytime someone says "history repeats itself" we should take caution), but indeed history can inform how we think about ethics, culture, identity,...
And this is how I would like to situate this assignment. This is an example of a scholarly work that examines the implications of Luther and Aquinas on the question war. I took out the Aquinas section of the article to save time. I would like you to read this piece and address the following two prompts on the blog. This will be due on Friday (9/24). You will get a hard copy of the essay tomorrow in class. This is a dense read. Take your time and read without the noise in the backdrop. Look the words up you don't understand.
20 points: 10 per response
each response should reveal: thinking, analyis, effective language, a relevant quote...
1. What context is revealed and established by the author in order to make his argument? Why do you think one might write about this in 2003 by the way? Or why might an editor want to publish it in 2003 if it was actually written earlier?
2. How / why is Luther brought into this discussion? In other words, so what about Luther? What do the words of Luther mean today in the context of this argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
1.Context is accordingly applied to the works and writings of Luther and Aquinas. Although these two are both known for their religious influence on reformation and revolution, but suprisingly, both had much to contribute to the so-called moral quandary of the "jus ad bellum"and the justice in war. Luther's own time of the renaissance is juxtapose with the present and recent past to form an entire picture: the upheaval of the Holy Roman Empire, numerous Spanish and French wars and the hundred years war all brought the question of morality into the war question. Of our own time, the Cold and Vietnam wars are prominent, but superpower policy during the 20th and 19th centuries are also fair game. In 2003, the US had just entered the war in Iraq under dubious reasons, and we were soon to find out that the original pretext for going to war would soon be proven untrue. Thus, the question of "jus ad bellum", or the "just cause for war" is a justified question to ask.
2. Luther's contribution to the thought processes on justified war are an important part of the ongoing debate. According to Luther, there were two kindgdoms in which war could reside: earth and heaven. In heaven, the great war had already been fought and lucifer had already been driven out. On earth, though, war flourished. Luther believed that a war against the church was unjustified no matter what the reason. There was a caveat though: political and military power was to rest on a purely secular institution: the state. The tension arising from an individuals allegiance to the spiritual world, the church, and the state was the main conflict that could fulfill his different arguments for a just war. In today's context, the conflict between the expected behavior of trusting one's government can conflict with the individual's belief that what their government is doing is wrong-comparative to a modern day "light brigade".
1) James Johnson's main point in his essay "Aquinas and Luther on War and Peace" is not about how we define war today, but it is on the ethics of who has the authority to declare "war." However, to do so, he must provide context on what we consider war today and what religious leaders in the 16th century considered a war. Johnson establishes context about war today as military force whether it be for national interest or perhaps for altruistic purposes such as peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. He then notes however that neither Aquinas or Luther would care about why military forced is used, but rather, their focus would be on whether "public authority was used for the public good," bellum, or "private authority for whatever reasons," duellum. In 2003, The United States had just entered the war in Iraq while continuing a vicious war in Afghanistan. One might consider the questions asked in this essay because was this war (which technically we are still in) for the public good, or was it for "whatever" reasons. A question that is repeated several times in this essay parallels quite well with questions that maybe be asked at the time: Was this a just cause for war?
2) Martin Luther, although a major proponent of the Reformation, used his religious beliefs in all aspects of life. The question is asked in the introductory paragraphs of the essay about the authority of war and Luther approaches this question with regards to the justice of war as well. In Luther's eyes, there are two worlds, the Worldly Kingdom, and the Kingdom of God. in The Worldly kingdom, power belongs to secular powers, not religious leaders (contrary to the norms of the time that the Papacy had ultimate power). In the kingodom of God, spiritual authority had precedent. They are two seperate entitites, and although a man belongs to both, religious authorities do not have power over secular ones in the case of "the sword." Today, Luther's argument is relavent because it is his question about authority that probes additional questions about the justness of war. Can a spiritual leader prompt a military engagement (for example, the Crusades) and justify it? Or can that only be done by a secular leaders, whose interests are best aligned with the public good? Luther explores this in his stance on war and peace.
Johnson lays down the context of war viewed both today in the 21st century, as well as during the time of the Reformation. He compares the modern idea that war is for keeping peace or dealing with humanitarian issues with the 16th century idea that war is fought by public forces for the "public good" or by private means for some other issue. The author explains that in the modern world, leaders are interested in peacekeeping and "humanitarian rescue" as opposed to gaining land or prosecuting members of a certain religion. The reason this piece was published in 2003 is because that is the year the war in Iraq began. American citizens wanted to understand why we were sending men and women to fight and die. They wanted to understand what it meant to fight a "just war." It was important to define what war meant, not only as a denotative noun, but also what it's connotation meant. They wanted to be reassured that the reasons for fighting a war were ethical and moral.
Luther is brought into this discussion because he believed that war was not only justified, but also necessary. His belief that the church needed to stay separate from the state government is reflected in the idea of the "two kingdoms." Luther believed that church officials had too much authority over the "earthly" world. He believed that the Papacy should be helping people reach salvation, as God had already won the war in heaven. Therefore, this is an important component to this publication because people wanted to know how to justify war due to the War in Iraq. Luther's idea that you must go to war to "punish the evil to protect the righteous" shows how war and humanitarianism can mesh. This put Americans at ease as the war continued.
I just read the 5 comments posted...these are some find examples of 17 year old students contemplating some really dense arguments. You are truly displaying sophisticated ways of analyzing the role context plays in academic writing. Can't wait to discuss large group! Where are the others?
1. James Johnson reveals and establishes a context in order to make his argument in his essay “Aquinas and Luther on War and Peace.” He situates the context of war both in during the Reformation and current times. What he discusses: “what makes a war a just cause?” or rather, what makes the people believe it is a just cause. He suggests that during the 16th century, war was fought for the benefit of public, or even just private benefit. For example, this would include gaining personal influence, land, etc. War today is based more on keeping peace as a military force or “humanitarian rescue.” This article had an appropriate publication date of 2003 because the war in Iraq had just begun. Americans demanded the answer to why citizens were being sent to fight and risk their lives. Everyone wanted to know the “just cause” for such an action,-“jus ad bellum”- or even if one existed.
2. So what about Luther? Why did Johnson choose to include him in his essay? Luther’s argument is appropriate because he questions authority and suggests the question of a just war. Luther believed there were two worlds, the “Wordly World” and the “Kingdom of God.” In the “Worldly World” all power is given to the secular powers, and not specifically the papacy—as he believed church officials were given too much power. While in the “Kingdom of God,” spiritual leaders had all authority. This separation further exemplifies our knowledge of his belief in separation of church and state. He contemplates whether a spiritual leader or secular leader would be just in beginning a war. In the context of 2003, being able to trust the government’s decision on war may have been argued by personal beliefs, just as Luther would have done in his times.
1. In Johnson's writings, he explains the cause and effect relationship of sovereign authority and the use of armed forces. He refers back to the 16th and 20th century, explaining the history of war which "would not have been congruent with our own" and how religious leaders in the past have viewed war. He uses the idea "jus ad bellum" where he questions the idea of what is beyond just fighting in battle. However, he is writing this years after, which shows that he is comparing recent events to how they dealt with these issues of war and conflict in the past. This composition is written in 2003 because the United States had gone onto the grounds of Iraq. Unknown what was going to happen, we entered this war which has affected everyday life. This has the people of America questioning why we went to war and how will this effect our future decisions.
2. Luther believed in two "kingdoms", which would include the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World. In the Kingdom of God, God has won spiritually and is now in control over the Heavens. However, in the Kingdom of the World, he believed in a secular system. This meant that that the government and church were separate with government more important than the church. Overall, with this two kingdoms, Luther believed that the Kingdom of God was superior, however; "Every Christian, for Luther, is a citizen of both realms, but has different responsibilities ,and owes different allegiance to both..." With these beliefs in place, Luther explains his religious standpoint on life and how to achieve salvation, which gives hope to those at war.
1. “War” is an incredibly important yet complex concept both in modern history and that of the 16th century. What constitutes war? What authority reigns supreme when deciding whether or not to invoke war? Johnson explores these questions and many more in his essay, one comparing and contrasting the nature of war throughout the years. He first presents us with the context of our modern system of declaring war, where just cause and authority work together in an often skewed relationship. We carry out this military action for “reasons of national interest” as well as humanitarian or altruistic purposes--those separate from economic or security interests. In our context, whether or not force is exercised by public authority for public good or by private authority for “whatever reasons” is very important, though this distinction would have seemed rather futile to a Luther or Aquinas. The effectiveness of this essay is magnified by its publication date of 2003--the year in which we entered the seemingly boundless Iraqi War. We engaged in this war mainly because of Bush’s (false) assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction. Is this “just cause?” Johnson’s 2003 essay on the causes of war and the goal of peace give us more insight into this loaded question.
2. As we all know, Luther was greatly concerned with religious reform. Due to the relationship between church and state at the time (church subservient to state) he had political and thus authoritative or “war” interests as well. He believed in two “kingdoms” and he believed that the question of authority was the most important when dealing with the “use of the sword.” Never one to completely agree with the RCC, Luther declared that the spiritual, or “godly,” kingdom and the temporal, or “worldly,” kingdom were separate realms, each with supreme authority merely in said realm. The godly authorities would have no power over those of the secular kingdom, and vice versa. Luther’s system presented in this context was meant to help clear up the question of what authority is needed to effectively wage war. He mainly reserved this right for the temporal government, though the Crusades (religious wars) added depth to this ideology.
1) What is considered a just cause for war? And who has the authority to declare war? These issues are presented both in historical and modern context in James Johnson's essay. In his work, he focuses on the thoughts of Luther and Aquinas. He states that the only distinction between the purposes of war that Luther and Aquinas cared about was the "distinction between the use of force by public authority for the public good and that on private authority for whatever reasons." This sole distinction also goes for the time period. During the 15th and 16th centuries, wars were fought for either the benefit of the public or the benefit of a certain ruler or group. But Johnson also establishes context for the causes of war in the 21st century. He writes that the latest cause for war is to "address egregious cases of humanitarian need." In other words, it now seems okay for a military of one nation to intervene in other countries that are in serious need of humanitarian efforts. He wants to show the major differences of the just war causes of the 16th century and the just war causes of the 21st century. Johnson's probable reason for writing and publishing this essay in the year 2003 is that that is the year in which the U.S. military entered the War in Iraq. I believe he is trying to cause the reader to question the current situation of Iraq and ask "Is there a just cause for this war?"
2) Although Luther is widely known as a religious reformer/revolutionary, he also had much to say about the just causes of war and who had the right to declare war. This is why Johnson included Luther in his essay. In Luther's opinion, there are two separate worlds, or kingdoms, with two separate authorities. In the "spiritual kingdom" the leaders of the church and all other spiritual authority take precedent, but in the "worldly kingdom" secular governmental leaders have all the authority. In other words, secular leaders do not have power in the religious realm and spiritual leaders do not have power in the physical realm. And so, because of this, Luther believed that religious leaders should not have any power to declare war. Again, I believe that with his inclusion of Luther in his work, Johnson is prompting his readers to question the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. Someone may argue, based on his personal beliefs, that the government's decision to go to war in Iraq was erroneous.
Johnson wastes no time in introducing thick context to help us understand the main question provoked in his essay "Aquinas & Luther on War & Peace": What justifys an act of war, and further more, who has the authority to make such a call? He establishes present day aproaches and beliefs on war and connects them to the ideology of Luther Aquinas, and other 16th century religious figures. While Luther and Aquinas were two "benchmark figures" in the evolution of Christian theology, both also chose to extend their wisdom onto the matters of war and the use of armed forces. Luther was exposed to a variety of wars throughout his lifespan, such as the French Wars of Religion, which allowed for him to take a firm stance on the subject. It shall be noted that both Aquinas and Luther focused on whether or not jus ad bellum, or the right to wage war, was demonstrated appropriately. Johnson put out this work in 2003 as it is prevelent to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the beginning of a war led by the United States against the Iraqis. Had Johnson written this prior to the invasion, his editor would have found this time period especially appropriate to publish it, as it would pertain more to current events.
2. Luther, while being primarily known as an imperative religious reformer/revolutionary, extended his philosophies over other apsecets of European civilization. As noted throughout history, Europeans frequently enjoy killing each other in a seemingly endless chain of wars, thus Luther was exposed to the use of armed forces which lead to the formation of his own opinions on war. He believed in the "two kingdoms", one of God and one of Earth. Luther stressed that in the worldly kingdom, secular figures, rather than religious figures, had power. In the worldly kingdom, these secular authorities had justification for waging war: to protect good from evil. Luther's words from centuries past can still be applied to the concept of war today. War is justified as a tool of projecting the good and punishing evil, not as a vehicle by which one gains material assests. By presenting Luther's standpoint on the matters of war and peace, Johnson is provoking one to controvert the legitamacy of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
1. In "Aquinas and Luther on War and Peace" Johnson addresses the question of what are states of peace and war. He also addresses what war is waged for and how it can be validated. He looks at the idea of "jus ad bellum" or just cause for war. these ideas fit in with our time as well as luther and aquinas time. for example in the reformation are a lot of conflict would arise from little disagreements that could be avoided, and conflict would be asked for in a way. for example the german princes keeping Luther safe for power was asking for conflict. in 2003 when the paper was written the US was going into iraq for what at first seemed like a good reason, however now looking back there was not real threat there. and one begins to think if the war was a "just cause" war. so the ideas and problems of war facing luther and aquinas is still present today.
2. Luther was big on reform of religion and the battle it would cause. Luther also believed in two worlds. a world of earth and a world of god. in the world of god the battle has already been fought when god defeated satan. however on earth the problem is still around. Luther sees the battle on earth as the battle of secularism and the battle of the government vs the church. the same way that god won in his kingdom someone would win on earth. this shows luthers view of a constant battle for some way of enlightenment or the beginning of a new time. the battle of gov. vs. church would enlighten all about how secularism is the way to be. today this is seen as the war on terror. a battle between good and evil. and in the same way luther saw such a battle in his time it still relates to the battle faced today.
1. How does the thoughts and ideas of someone who lived so long ago still influence how we think today? What makes people WANT to know how to respond and to think to certain situations we encounter today? In this case how does Martin Luther, a religious reformationist impact how we think about something as controversial as war? Why are we looking to him anyways? These questions are important in understanding this. It's because essentially he was going through the same events and controversies as we were. What are the morals behind war? Is there really a just war or should war always be the last resort? Martin Luther not only lived through the Protestant reformation (which he sparked) but he also lived through wars in which people just did not understand. This relates to our time. This article was written in 2003, the year we entered into Iraq. The vigor of 9/11 had worn down among the citizens and we started to think "why are we involved in this war?". Martin Luther was asking himself these same kinds of questions. He explicates that to enter into war you must have a plausible reinforceable cause. This directly relates to our entrance into Iraq, which proved to be detrimental. So in thinking of the contextual factors you might say why now? Not because we are all of the sudden going into a reformation but because Luther was a man living in a time of many events, not just a reformation.
2) Jimmy Carter once said: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Today the debate moves onward, how do you classify something as a "just war"? How JUST can a war be if it is just? Luther spoke out on these matters saying that their today are two places where war can occur: heaven-which already had been won by driving Satan out and earth. Earth had not won or lost this war but is still happening. It's almost like Luther says there is a war on war happening. Luther says that a war should never be waged by or against the church for it is an institution based on the necessity to achieve salvation not to change the way others think by force. But this leaves the haunting question. Where do you draw the line where one's beliefs influence how and when you go to war? This is a question in which you answer through your own contemplation.
1. How does the thoughts and ideas of someone who lived so long ago still influence how we think today? What makes people WANT to know how to respond and to think to certain situations we encounter today? In this case how does Martin Luther, a religious reformationist impact how we think about something as controversial as war? Why are we looking to him anyways? These questions are important in understanding this. It's because essentially he was going through the same events and controversies as we were. What are the morals behind war? Is there really a just war or should war always be the last resort? Martin Luther not only lived through the Protestant reformation (which he sparked) but he also lived through wars in which people just did not understand. This relates to our time. This article was written in 2003, the year we entered into Iraq. The vigor of 9/11 had worn down among the citizens and we started to think "why are we involved in this war?". Martin Luther was asking himself these same kinds of questions. He explicates that to enter into war you must have a plausible reinforceable cause. This directly relates to our entrance into Iraq, which proved to be detrimental. So in thinking of the contextual factors you might say why now? Not because we are all of the sudden going into a reformation but because Luther was a man living in a time of many events, not just a reformation.
2) Jimmy Carter once said: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Today the debate moves onward, how do you classify something as a "just war"? How JUST can a war be if it is just? Luther spoke out on these matters saying that their today are two places where war can occur: heaven-which already had been won by driving Satan out and earth. Earth had not won or lost this war but is still happening. It's almost like Luther says there is a war on war happening. Luther says that a war should never be waged by or against the church for it is an institution based on the necessity to achieve salvation not to change the way others think by force. But this leaves the haunting question. Where do you draw the line where one's beliefs influence how and when you go to war? This is a question in which you answer through your own contemplation.
1. How does the thoughts and ideas of someone who lived so long ago still influence how we think today? What makes people WANT to know how to respond and to think to certain situations we encounter today? In this case how does Martin Luther, a religious reformationist impact how we think about something as controversial as war? Why are we looking to him anyways? These questions are important in understanding this. It's because essentially he was going through the same events and controversies as we were. What are the morals behind war? Is there really a just war or should war always be the last resort? Martin Luther not only lived through the Protestant reformation (which he sparked) but he also lived through wars in which people just did not understand. This relates to our time. This article was written in 2003, the year we entered into Iraq. The vigor of 9/11 had worn down among the citizens and we started to think "why are we involved in this war?". Martin Luther was asking himself these same kinds of questions. He explicates that to enter into war you must have a plausible reinforceable cause. This directly relates to our entrance into Iraq, which proved to be detrimental. So in thinking of the contextual factors you might say why now? Not because we are all of the sudden going into a reformation but because Luther was a man living in a time of many events, not just a reformation.
2) Jimmy Carter once said: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Today the debate moves onward, how do you classify something as a "just war"? How JUST can a war be if it is just? Luther spoke out on these matters saying that their today are two places where war can occur: heaven-which already had been won by driving Satan out and earth. Earth had not won or lost this war but is still happening. It's almost like Luther says there is a war on war happening. Luther says that a war should never be waged by or against the church for it is an institution based on the necessity to achieve salvation not to change the way others think by force. But this leaves the haunting question. Where do you draw the line where one's beliefs influence how and when you go to war? This is a question in which you answer through your own contemplation.
1.James Johnson opens up this article by explaining the meanings of “war” and how Aquinas and Luther may have meant this word in a different way than we would today. Today “war” is another word for an armed conflict, as said in the article. Luther may have meant it to be not an armed conflict, but an opposition of ideas between two or more states. He goes on to give examples of conflict from the 20th century. Johnson asks and answers the question “How does war come about?” and “How can one resolve the conflict of war?” In the beginning of the introduction, James Johnson uses the term “jus ad bellum” or “the right to wage war” to describe how a just war comes about. In 2003, America entered the Iraqi War. The reasons for entering Iraq were to obtain the weapons of mass destruction; most notably yellow cake uranium that the President believed was hidden there. This article was probably published to link a “just war” to the invasion of Iraq to find nuclear weapons.
2.Luther believed that war was necessary. He believed in two kingdoms or “worlds”; one in which was ruled by church and state (but more specifically state because of Luther’s thought that the church had too much authority already) and another which was ruled solely by leaders of a more religious or spiritual background. Both these had the higher authority in their own realms and would have no power in the others realm. Which is more trustworthy in the beginning of war the state leader or the church leader? In Luther’s eyes the war of the spiritual world has already been won with the defeat of Satan but war still continues in the earthly world due to conflicts between states and with the churches involvement with the states. In the context of today, Luther’s comments can be looked at as ones trust or belief in their government that it is waging a just war and fighting for a worthy cause and not one that is posed just to wage a war.
1. The use of historical context is certainly evident throughout this document. It is seen early on as the author writes about the prevalence of the idea of "just war", the ethical connotations of war and uses and force, and multiple citations from various religious organizations and their positions on the subject, largely on distinguishing factors in the ethical use of force, such as its being use for a state's national interest and gain or for humanitarian reasons, although the various churches seemed to have a "presumption against war" in any case. This document coming about at the time, or published at the time, it did certainly makes sense, as this time marked the engagement of Iraq in armed combat and just two years after the 9/11 incident, thus filling possible opposite qualifications for armed combat, national interest, (retribution for those responsible), and humanitarian efforts, (protection from further attacks).
2. Luther is brought into the discussion first by relating him to the earlier context, saying he would not necessarily understand the distinguishing factors used for considering a war or fight "just" in contemporary society, as his time had different thoughts and worries on such a subject. A possible reason he is brought in is to compare and show contrast in his thoughts and beliefs on the subject of "just war", (possibly focusing on his position in relation to his religion, as everything in his time was connected to religion), with contemporary thought/contemporary religious thought on "just war". Whereas Luther's ideas on authority and its usage of force consisted of differences in public use for good and private use for whatever, modern views tend to have a distrust of authority and view any use of force on its part as inherently negative, while often applauding the efforts of private forces, as long as the private force's views align with the modern individual's views and personal morals. Luther's words provide a historical context and view of the change in society and its prominent public figures in regards to this subject.
1. Johnson establishes context in two ways. Luther and Aquinas are placed in a historical context of the 16th century, around the Religious Reformation while the second context established is that of the 21st century, soon after the deployment of American troops to intervene in Iraq. It is possible that Johnson wrote about this topic in 2003 to help create the discussion of the Iraq war. An editor might have decided to print this essay in 2003 as he may have disagreed with American intervention and wanted to voice his opinion
2. Luther is revealed in this discussion to better demonstrate the author’s point of war. If war is to take place, then it must be just and needed, not just for show. The point the author is trying to make is whether or not American intervention in the middle east is correct and if it is, are we doing what needs done or are we just concerned with American interest. Finally, Luther’s words are important in this argument because he believed in the separation of church and state. When these two ideals collide, they create conflict and eventual separations. The author uses Luther to demonstrate how ridiculous the notion of intertwining religion and military truly is.
Post a Comment